Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 327703 covering the area of Drafting and Technical Construction. During the 1985-1986 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lyman High School in the Seminole County School District. (T-85) Jilliana Holt attended Lyman High School as a senior during the 1985- 1986 school year. (T-84) At the time, she was 17 years old. (T-84) Jill met the Respondent in the fall of 1985 through a friend of hers who was a student in the Respondent's class at the time. (T-85) Although the Respondent did not teach any of Jill's classes, she saw him at school everyday when she visited her friend, Darla Franklin, on her way to class (T-86, Petitioner's proposed Finding #3.) Jill came to know the Respondent through casual conversation. (T-86) Eventually, they found that they shared a common interest in motorcycles. (T- 86) The Respondent owned a motorcycle. (T-86; P-11) In January 1986, the Respondent invited Jill to take a ride on his motorcycle with him. (T-87) In late January 1986, the Respondent took Jill out for a day-long motorcycle ride. (T-89) The trip took place on a Saturday, while Jill's mother was at work. (T-89) There was no predetermined destination. (T-89) After picking Jill up at her house on Saturday morning, they eventually arrived in Clermont between 12:00 noon and 2:00 P.M. (T-90) There they stopped at Quincy's Restaurant where they discussed some of Jill's personal and family problems. The Respondent indicated to her that he had taken some psychology courses in college and that he would work with her to help her with her problems. (T-90) The Respondent suggested that they go to a motel where they could sit and talk. Jill demurred, but the couple ended up at a nearby Howard Johnson's motel. (T-91, Petitioner's proposed findings #8 and 9.) Jill and the Respondent engaged in sexual relations at the motel. (T- 92) Following their trip to Clermont, the Respondent and Jill began to see each other in a dating relationship. (T-93) Fellow students, Sam Frazier and Darla Franklin, covered for Jill with her parents so that she could see the Respondent secretively. (T-94-97) On one occasion, Sam picked Jill up at her home ostensibly to go on a date. Instead, he dropped her off to meet the Respondent and later picked her up and took her home after she saw the Respondent. (T-94, 95) On another occasion, Darla covered for Jill one weekend when Jill accompanied the Respondent on an overnight boating trip. Jill was supposed to be spending the night with Darla when in fact she accompanied the Respondent to Port Canaveral and spent the night alone with the Respondent in his boat on the Atlantic Ocean. (T-95-99) The Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex with Jill while on his boat. (T-98) This trip occurred near the end of March or the first of April 1986. (T-96) Jill visited the Respondent at his home on two occasions. (T-99) On one occasion, they had sexual intercourse in the Respondent's bedroom. (T-100) The Respondent took Jill to the Diplomat Inn in Orlando on two occasions. The first occurred in February 1986. (T-106; P-2) After arriving at the hotel on the Respondent's motorcycle (T-106; P-2) the Respondent obtained a room. While there, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with Jill. (T-106) The Respondent took Jill to the Diplomat Inn on a second occasion in his pickup truck. (T-107; P-3) The Respondent was not feeling well when they arrived, so no sexual activity took place beyond hugging and kissing. (T-107) (Petitioner's proposed finding of fact #16.) On Valentines Day 1986, the Respondent met Jill and Darla Franklin at a Quincy's restaurant for dinner. The Respondent gave Jill a teddy bear with a golzd bracelet around its neck. (T-109; P-5, P-9) Later that evening Jill saw the Respondent at the school's curriculum fair. (T-109) When the Respondent returned to his classroom, Jill hugged, kissed and thanked him for the presents. (T-110) (Petitioner's proposed finding #17.) In addition to engaging in sexual intercourse in hotel rooms, his home and his boat, the Respondent drove Jill to an orange grove on a number of occasions where sexual intercourse and/or oral sex took place. (T-119, 120) On another occasion the Respondent took Jill to a wooded area where they had sexual intercourse. (T-113) Afterward, the Respondent gave Jill a key chain with his initials on it. (T-112) In addition to the gifts previously mentioned, the Respondent gave Jill a computer disc box and several computer discs for use in her computer class at school. (T-114) He also gave her some scuba gear for her use when he took Jill on a diving trip to Cow Sink. (T-114) (Petitioner's proposed finding #18.) The Respondent wrote Jill four short notes which he gave to her at school. (T-116; P-4) (Respondent's proposed finding #14.) The parties developed a strong relationship between themselves and Jill believed that she was in love with Respondent. (T-128, 133, 134) While the relationship was ongoing, the Respondent told Jill that he loved her, that he planned to divorce his wife and that he wanted to marry her and move to West Palm Beach. (T-102, 104, 105) The Respondent resigned from his employment with the Seminole County School Board on April 30, 1986. (T-151) (Petitioner's proposed finding #22) After Jill's disclosure of her relationship with the Respondent to law enforcement officers, the relationship quickly became known at Lyman High School and in her community. (T-124, 148; P- 10) (Petitioner's proposed finding #23) The resulting publicity put a great deal of stress on Jill's relationship with her family (T-125) and her fellow students. (T-124) She was ostracized at school. (T-124) Her graduation was put in jeopardy. (T-125) She was embarrassed at her senior prom. (T-125) Students booed her during graduation exercises at the end of the school year. (T-126) (Petitioner's proposed finding #24.) Dr. Hortense Evans testified in her expert opinion that the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Seminole County School Board was seriously reduced as the result of his relationship with student Jilliana Holt. (T-145, 146) In her expert opinion, children are sent to school to receive an education, not to be sexually abused or exploited. (T-147) Respondent's conduct violates the trust which parents place in the school system to care for their children properly and professionally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked for violating Section 231.28(1), F.S., and rules of the State Department of Education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John A. Baldwin, Esquire Baldwin & Baum 7100 South Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Teaching Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Linda Rondone, Jane E. Vowell, Susan C. Vassilev, Kyril P. Vassilev, III and Johnny B. McKenzie. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 were admitted in evidence. Official recognition, pursuant to Section 90.202, Florida Statutes, was taken of the statutes and violations charged in the case of State of Florida v. Jeffrey Siegfried, 85-1568 MMA02, and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Section 6B--1.01, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Jeffrey W. Siegfried, failed to appear for the formal hearing despite notice to him personally and to his former counsel who was granted leave to withdraw. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent held Teaching Certificate Number 440229, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent's Teaching Certificate covers the areas of English and Reading. On or about June 13, 1978, the Respondent applied for a teaching certificate for the State of Florida. The Respondent filled out the application and answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application in front of a notary on June 13, 1978, certifying that all information pertaining to the application was true and correct. Petitioner presented charging documents from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, in which the Respondent was charged with three crimes alleged to have occurred on June 7, 1975, to wit: Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance, Corruption of Minors and Disorderly Conduct. Further, the documents indicated that the Respondent was sentenced on December 4, 1975, to the Program of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition on the charges of Possession of Marijuana and Corruption of Minors. The program involved a twenty four (24) month probationary period and payment of $350.00 restitution. The charge of Disorderly Conduct was nolle prossed. On July 20, 1979, the Respondent filled out an Application of Instructional Position for Palm Beach County, Florida. The Respondent in said application again made no mention of his criminal history. He again checked off "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application certifying that all the answers given were true. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1986, an Information was filed in the County Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, charging the Respondent with Possession of Marijuana on January 15, 1985 and Child Abuse on December 23, 1984. Susan C. Vassilev, mother of Kyril Vassilev, testified that she had been friends with the Respondent for 3 or 4 years preceding December of 1984. Throughout their acquaintance, the Respondent was employed as a full time teacher for the Palm Beach County School Board. Mrs. Vassilev's son, Kyril, occasionally did yard work and odd jobs for the Respondent. On December 23rd of 1984, Mrs. Vassilev reminded her son about a Christmas Eve dinner invitation at the Respondent's house. He answered her, "No, I'm not going there. He's a fag. I don't want anything to do with him." Mrs. Vassilev than testified as to what her son told her which was again reiterated by her son when he testified later in the hearing. In November and December, 1984, Kyril Vassilev was thirteen (13) years old. He had met the Respondent through his mother and knew the Respondent to be a teacher in Palm Beach County. Kyril went to the Respondent's house in late November or early December of 1984 to do some yard work for the Respondent. The Respondent picked Kyril up and while in the Respondent's van, the Respondent suggested that he knew a way for Kyril to earn a lot of money and only work two hours a day, 2 or 3 times a week. After Kyril mowed the Respondent's yard, he came into the Respondent's house for a drink. He asked the Respondent how he could make such easy money. The Respondent told him it was called child pornography and explained that it involved Kyril posing for nude photographs. The Respondent showed Kyril photographs of a nude boy in a magazine and claimed that he had helped the boy earn money by arranging for him to pose nude. Kyril told the Respondent that he wasn't interested and went back outside to continue staining the backyard fence. After a while, Kyril went back inside for another drink. The Respondent at that point told Kyril that the photographers had called and were willing to pay him $200.00 for posing nude. Kyril again told the Respondent that he was not interested. After finishing work, Kyril again came into the house and the Respondent told him the photographers had called again and upped the price to $500.00. Kyril told the Respondent no again. The Respondent sent Kyril to buy camera film at Eckerds. Kyril testified that he was afraid, but he went and got the film and brought it back. Again the Respondent asked Kyril if he would reconsider. Kyril, again, declined. Before Kyril left, the Respondent informed him that he couldn't tell his mother or anyone else. The Respondent told Kyril that he need not worry about his mother finding out, because the Respondent would open a secret bank account for him, where he could keep the money. Before leaving for the day, Kyril testified that, the Respondent told him "they" had called and were now willing to pay up to $1,000. The Respondent took Kyril home and enroute again tried to talk him into posing nude. Kyril again declined. The Respondent indicated that Kyril could make even more money doing things with other boys in front of the camera. Kyril was waiting until after Christmas to tell his mother, but because of the invitation to the Respondent's residence for Christmas Eve dinner, he decided to tell his mother on December 24, 1984. Mrs. Vassilev confronted the Respondent with her son's allegations and he claimed to be working undercover for school security to infiltrate a child pornography ring. Johnny B. McKenzie testified that as Director of Security for Palm Beach School Board that he had no knowledge of the Respondent working for school security. On July 11, 1985, the Respondent pled no contest to Count I, Possession of Marijuana less than 20 grams and Count II, Child Abuse. Judge Karen Martin, County Court Judge in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, withheld adjudication as to Count I and adjudicated the Respondent guilty of Count II. The Respondent was placed on twelve (12) months probation with special conditions that he: (1) make no contact with any child under the age of 18 years without another adult being present; (2) make no contact with the mother of the victim and/or the victim, himself; (3) undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment if needed; and, (4) undergo psychological evaluation and counseling if needed. Ms. Jane E. Vowell, then acting as Assistant Superintendent, testified that on or about January 17, 1985, the Respondent was called into her office and she informed him of the charges against him, and told him that she would recommend to the Superintendent that he be suspended with pay and given an opportunity to resign. The Respondent resigned on February 4, 1985. Ms. Vowell testified that the Respondent's teaching certificate should be permanently revoked because he lacked the moral character needed to be a teacher responsible for children. On March 6, 1985, the Respondent submitted an Application for Instructional Position to the Broward County School Board. The Respondent again answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" He again signed the application certifying that all the information given on the application was true and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking the teaching certificate of Jeffrey W. Siegfried. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-33 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-33. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey W. Siegfried Post Office Box 172 Truro, Massachusetts 02666 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated October 25, 2000, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Battles was employed as a physical education teacher and head football coach at Gardens. He was popular with students and enjoyed a good relationship with his principal. Battles' first full year as head coach began with the 1997-98 school year. At that time Battles was 33 and was an experienced teacher, having taught in Florida schools for a decade. In the spring of 1998, a 14-year-old ninth grader at Gardens, Stephanie Carbone (Carbone), developed an infatuation with Battles. She confided her crush to one of her classmates and girlfriends, Barbara Borucki (Borucki), who promptly communicated the information to Battles. Very shortly after that conversation, Battles commenced a sexual relationship with Carbone. Their initial sexual contact consisted of kissing and fondling. The relationship continued for under two months. During that time, Battles and Carbone had sexual encounters two or three times a week. Right around the time the relationship began, Carbone volunteered to be a student manager for the football team. Taking advantage of Carbone's fixation on him, Battles facilitated an improper relationship with her by allowing her to volunteer, and assigning her to duties which would involve being alone with him in areas of the school gym which he was able to lock and render inaccessible to third parties. Battles and Carbone engaged in sexual activity in the coach's office, the equipment room, and the shower area of the gym. Their relationship and their encounters, which were clearly and convincingly described at the final hearing by Carbone, are best described as pathetic. The relationship consisted of kissing, groping, fondling, giving and receiving oral sex, digital penetration, or some combination thereof, for periods of short duration during or after the school day, two or three times per week. On one occasion, the two unsuccessfully attempted intercourse. Carbone's memory with respect to minor details of the relationship was imperfect, but not inconsistent with what would be expected of a witness testifying truthfully from memory as to emotionally charged events which occurred three years ago. The undersigned fully credits the testimony of Carbone as to the existence of the relationship, and the nature and frequency of the sexual contact between her and Battles. The undersigned carefully observed Carbone's demeanor under oath. In her direct testimony and on cross-examination, she was unflinching. There is no evidence that she committed perjury for the purpose of harming Battles, or due to a mental illness, nor for any other reason. Carbone was candid and unsparing of herself as she described how she had thought she was in love with Battles, and how she had initially been the aggressor and invited his attentions. When the relationship eventually became known to school authorities, Carbone at first denied its existence, in order to protect Battles. Before, during, and after the relationship began, Battles was well liked by Carbone and by her friends. There is no evidence that Carbone nor any of her friends desired to "set him up." There is no evidence that Carbone has any financial stake in proving the existence of the relationship. Nor is there any plausible explanation of why she would perjure herself in order to injure Battles. Although at some point in the relationship, Carbone came to be uncomfortable, knowing that sex with a teacher was wrong, her testimony clearly and convincingly establishes that she would have kept up her end of the relationship for at least some additional period of time, had she not first been confronted by school authorities. The confrontation came about six to eight weeks into the relationship. Battles was a married man, and at the start of the relationship had instructed Carbone to keep whatever happened between them a secret. Carbone disobeyed that instruction from the start. Instead, she shared their "secret" with one friend at a time. By May 4, 1998, Gardens Principal Paul Houlihan (Houlihan) had heard a rumor that there was an improper relationship between Battles and Carbone. Coincidentally, on that same day, Carbone's mother brought her or Carbone to Houlihan's office. Mrs. Carbone was upset because she had found her daughter off campus in a van with other students. During that meeting, Houlihan asked Carbone about the rumors that she was involved with a teacher. Initially, Carbone denied involvement with Battles by name, even though Houlihan had not mentioned the name of any particular teacher. Houlihan and Carbone's mother did not credit Stephanie's denial, in part because of her demeanor as she denied the allegation, and in part because Stephanie was the first to use Battles' name. The following day, Houlihan confronted Battles. Battles did not deny the existence of a relationship. Instead, he expressed two thoughts: fear that his wife would leave him on learning of the allegations; and concern for what impact the allegations would have on the football team. Carbone's story is corroborated in some aspects by the testimony of fellow students who had opportunities to observe how Carbone's "volunteer work" for the football team provided cover for her relationship with Battles. For example, classmate Josh Knight (Knight) would on occasion accompany Carbone to the gym and wait with her outside until the football team left, usually to go to the weight room, at which time Battles would wave her in and close and lock the doors behind them. The undersigned carefully observed the demeanor of Knight and each of the other students who testified regarding their observations of Battles and Carbone, as well as about things Carbone had told them about the relationship. Based upon the demeanor of the student witnesses under oath; how they handled themselves during cross-examination; their lack of a financial stake in the outcome; the fact that they had no difficulties with Battles as a teacher and otherwise lacked any apparent motive to harm him; and the lack of any other plausible motive to commit perjury, the undersigned credits the testimony of Carbone's friends as substantially accurate accounts of what Carbone told them contemporaneously during the time she was involved with Battles, as well as their observations of some exchanges between Battles and Carbone which they believe were appropriate to a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, rather than one of student and teacher. Cross-examination of Carbone and each of Petitioner's other witnesses established that various witnesses had given testimony which Battles contends is in conflict with testimony they had provided on previous occasions. Such alleged conflicting testimony is set forth in Paragraphs 7-19 of Battles' Proposed Recommended Order. Battles contends that allegedly conflicting testimony between witnesses, or in some cases between details testified to by the same witness at different times, effectively discredits the testimony and renders DOE unable to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed the testimony which Battles argues to be conflicting or impeaching, and deems the conflicts, to the extent any were actually established, to be irrelevant. To take one example, Carbone once testified that Borucki had walked her to Battles' office on the day of her first intimate encounter with Battles. On another occasion, she testified that Knight had walked her to the office that day. Whether she misspoke, or was mistaken, or whether someone else or nobody else had walked her to the office, is insignificant in the context of the entire record. The record as a whole reveals that Carbone was close to and had frequent contact with both Borucki and Knight, and spoke with as well as hung around with both of them often. The discrepancy in her testimony on this point may reflect a confused memory. Or it may have been a misspeak. Or she might have misunderstood the question. The factual resolution of this and other "discrepancies" raised by Battles does not affect the substantive factual issue in this case. In January 2000, Battles was tried, but not convicted, on criminal charges arising out of his alleged relationship with Carbone. Battles testified in the criminal case, and submitted a copy of his testimony as evidence in these proceedings. He was not obligated to testify in these proceedings, and elected not to. No inference for or against him was drawn by reason of this decision. In his criminal court testimony, Battles admitted that Borucki, whom he described as his "good friend" had made him aware that Carbone "liked" him. He claimed that he did not take this information seriously at the time, and promptly forgot about it, and denied the existence of any improper relationship with Carbone. In the course of his criminal trial testimony, Battles admitted that Carbone was accurate in her description of his underwear. He attributed her knowledge to the fact that he bends over a lot and anyone standing nearby would be able to see his underwear when he does. Battles' explanation for why Carbone can describe his underwear is rejected as not credible. A 33-year-old gym teacher would reasonably be expected to be able to conceal his underwear from his students. Given Battles' obvious, overwhelming motive to deny, as he did, the existence of any improper relationship with Carbone, the undersigned concludes that the transcript of Battles' trial testimony, when considered with the other evidence presented by Battles, is insufficient to refute the clear, consistent, and convincing testimony of Carbone as to the existence, nature, and duration of an improper sexual relationship between them. By letter dated May 18, 1998, Houlihan informed Battles that his teaching contract would not be renewed for the 1998-1999 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent Clifford L. Battles is guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Amended Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count 2 of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and permanently revoking Battles' teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mark Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Alexander Roy, is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g) and (n), Florida Statutes (2011). If violations are found, the appropriate penalty must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1035877, covering the areas of mathematics, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social studies, which is valid through June 2015. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the St. Lucie County School Board (SLCSB) as a mathematics teacher at Manatee Elementary School, also known as Manatee K-8 School. On or about January 13, 2012, Respondent was arrested in Osceola County, Florida, as the result of allegations that Respondent used an internet provider and “knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed and coerced an individual who had not attained the age of eighteen years, to engage in sexual activity.” The allegations were based on the probable cause affidavit of Kevin Kulp, Special Agent for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who worked on the undercover operation giving rise to Respondent’s arrest, which stated that Respondent contacted a person on-line that he believed to be the mother of a 13-year-old girl in order to have sex with both the mother and the daughter. The “mother” and the “daughter” were undercover police officers. As a result of Respondent’s arrest, a search warrant was executed to search Respondent’s residence in St. Lucie County, Florida. According to Detective Longson, the search revealed that Respondent possessed approximately 75-100 images of minors engaged in explicit sexual conduct. The analysis of the information seized at Respondent’s home also included photos and videos of a teenage girl, approximately 16 years old, engaged in explicit sexual acts with Respondent. On January 17, 2012, as a result of his arrest, Respondent was placed on temporary duty assignment at his home. On or about March 5, 2012, Respondent was charged by indictment with one count of Enticing and Attempting to Entice a Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and four counts of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). A Superseding Indictment containing the same charges was filed May 31, 2012. On March 27, 2012, he was suspended without pay by the SLCSB because of the federal criminal charges against him. On April 10, 2012, Respondent was terminated from his employment by the SLCSB, based upon his inability to report for work because of his imprisonment. On or about June 15, 2012, Respondent was tried in federal court before a jury. He was found guilty of all five counts. On September 12, 2012, United States District Court Judge K. Michael Moore adjudicated Respondent guilty on all five counts, and sentenced him to life in prison as to Count 1, and 120 months of incarceration as to each of Counts 2 through 5, with the penalty for all five counts to be served concurrently. Upon release, Respondent is to be placed on probation for life, a condition of which is to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. § 16901. et seq.), as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender agency in a state in which he resides, works, is a student, or was convicted of a qualifying offense. Also included in the Special Conditions of Supervision are that Respondent may not possess or use any computer, with the exception of pre-approved use in connection with authorized employment; that Respondent shall not have personal, mail, telephone, or computer contact with children under the age of 18; that Respondent shall not be involved in any children’s or youth organization; and that Respondent shall participate in a sex offender program. Respondent’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction were covered by the media, in the newspaper and on the radio, television, and internet. Respondent’s conviction significantly impairs Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher in the community. Respondent’s certification is for middle school grades. The prohibition from having contact with children under the age of 18 makes it impossible for him to hold employment as a teacher in the public school system. As stated by Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for St. Lucie County Schools, “[t]here is absolutely no way that the students and the parents and the community would have any faith in him being alone in a classroom with kids even for one minute. And he would not be able to effectively be in a classroom. Or be on campus, period, where there are children present.” His testimony is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of all four Counts in the Amended Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder, P.A. 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Alexander Roy, Register # 99238-004 United States Penitentiary Post Office Box 24550 Tucson, Arizona 85734 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ or Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A- 10.081(4)(c) or (e), or 6A-10.081(5)(d) or (o), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 776134, which covers the areas of school principal and social science, and is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Pasco County School District (PCSD). In April 2009 Respondent became the principal at Zephyrhills High School (Zephyrhills School), and was employed in that capacity until November 2012. At the time Respondent started his career with the PCSD, he was aware of the Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers. Later, when Respondent became an assistant principal he became aware of Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers and Administrators (Code). Respondent knew of the Code, but had not read it "line by line." Respondent was aware that he was not to engage in conduct that could seriously reduce his effectiveness as a PCSD employee; he was not to use his institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; he was not to engage in any kind of harassment or discriminatory conduct against any of his subordinates; and he was not to create a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive or oppressive environment. Respondent was aware of the appropriate behavior in the PCSD environment. Respondent understood that it was his job as the Zephyrhills School principal to run the school, "a full-service high school preparing kids for their futures." Respondent oversaw all the academic programs, approximately 1600 students, over 100 faculty and support staff, 25 to 30 acres of school grounds, and a multi-million dollar budget. Respondent oversaw the hiring and firing of Zephyrhills School staff. Although Respondent did not have the ultimate authority to hire or fire staff, his opinion regarding recommendations as to whom to hire or fire carried significant weight. Teachers and staff believed Respondent held power over their employment status. Respondent provided performance evaluations for Zephyrhills School teachers and staff, and provided input into the performance evaluations of other PCSD employees who worked on the campus of Zephyrhills School. Respondent's management style was open and relaxed. Respondent fostered an open-door policy; however, by his own admission, he was "constantly on the fly . . . and very seldom in [his] office." Respondent encouraged interactions with teachers and staff through school activities as well as other social settings away from the school. Janene Witfoth Sullivan was an adult education assistant principal of Moore-Mickens School assigned to split her time between Zephyrhills School and Pasco High School. Although Ms. Sullivan's supervisor was located at Moore-Mickens School, Respondent had input into Ms. Sullivan's performance evaluation. Respondent admitted that early in his tenure at Zephyrhills School, he approached Ms. Sullivan, who was on-duty in a common area and asked her if she was a witch. Respondent also admitted that he put his hands in the air in front of him, and said "Abracadabra" and words to the effect of "can you enlarge my penis?" Ms. Sullivan was appalled, shocked, and offended that Respondent would address her in such a fashion in the common area of the school. Ms. Sullivan never confronted Respondent about his actions as she was concerned about the consequences she would face, as Respondent provided input to Ms. Sullivan's supervisor for her yearly evaluation. Respondent acknowledged his error in judgment in making the comments and gesture. Aimee Boltze was the director of staff development for the PCSD and worked as the school advisory committee liaison between the district office and Zephyrhills School. Zephyrhills School was identified as a school in need of improvement, and Ms. Boltze regularly met with the Zephyrhills School administrative team to plan school strategies and programs to help improve the achievement scores. Respondent admitted that during an in-school meeting, with other administrators present (Andressa Williams, John Taylor, and Scott Davey), he commented that Ms. Boltze's hair looked like a scene from the movie There's Something About Mary.6/ Later in that same meeting, Respondent made another comment about Ms. Boltze and what she was doing to him "under the table" at a prior meeting.7/ These remarks were inappropriate, unwelcome and offensive to Ms. Boltze, and embarrassed other administrators who were present for the meeting. Ms. Boltze immediately addressed Respondent by telling him "you're an ass," that he was out of line, and that she, Ms. Boltze, was the director of staff development and he needed to be careful.8/ Theresa Wright was a biology teacher at Zephyrhills School when Respondent became its principal. Ms. Wright wanted to teach the 2011-2012 school year to save money to attend medical school. Early in the school year, Ms. Wright informed her union representative that she was uncomfortable with the way Respondent looked her "up and down" when she and Respondent were in the office. Ms. Wright and the representative discussed a possible sexual harassment complaint. When Respondent heard of this potential complaint, he became angry and immediately called Ms. Wright and the representative to his office for a meeting. During the meeting, Respondent threatened that he would "go after" Ms. Wright for slander because Respondent had "never spoke[n] to you, never looked at you, never talked to you, [and] was never in your [Ms. Wright's] classroom." Respondent confirmed that Ms. Wright looked scared during this meeting, and when told to leave Respondent's office, Ms. Wright and the representative did so. Ms. Wright feared she would lose her job and she resigned her teaching position within the first quarter of that school year. Respondent contacted his supervisor about his statements to Ms. Wright. Kristy Blazys (f/k/a Kristy Koess) accepted a position at Zephyrhills School as an assistant principal for the 2011-2012 school year. Prior to working at Zephyrhills School, Ms. Blazys had previously worked at an elementary school, a middle school and a different high school to obtain the requisite experience to become an administrator. During her one-year tenure at Zephyrhills School, Ms. Blazys heard Respondent make frequent sexual comments about other female teachers. As teachers walked through the school's common areas during class transitions, Respondent would comment on female teachers' weight gain in "all of the right places," about female breasts and his desire to play with them. Ms. Blazys endured crude sexist remarks by Respondent regarding her relationship with her then boyfriend. Ms. Blazys was afraid to report Respondent for fear of retaliation. Courtney Sprigg was a math teacher at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal. Ms. Sprigg considered Respondent a friend as she knew him outside the school setting. Ms. Sprigg told Respondent to stop saying degrading and vulgar things about women because Respondent was never going to "pick up anybody by acting this way towards them or saying these things towards them." Ms. Sprigg found Respondent's comments about female teachers, including herself, to be offensive. Andressa Williams was an assistant principal at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal. Ms. Williams heard Respondent's comment about a female employee's breast, and she told Respondent the comment was inappropriate and that Respondent should be careful in what he said. Although Ms. Williams did not feel uncomfortable when she heard these comments while alone with Respondent, she was uncomfortable when someone else was present. Ms. Williams also heard Respondent's comments about Ms. Blazys' new relationship. In one instance, Ms. Williams commented to Respondent and other administrators before a school meeting, that Ms. Blazys was not in the mood for jokes about her relationship. Despite Ms. Williams' comment, Respondent made a comment about Ms. Blazys being late for work because she "got some" or was with her boyfriend. This comment was taken as a sexual reference. Aimee Stryker-Marando, an ESE9/ teacher first met Respondent in 2001 when they both worked at a local middle school where Respondent was an assistant principal. Ms. Stryker-Marando started work on a master's degree while employed at another high school. While at this other high school she was having some difficulty in obtaining the requisite opportunities for her graduate course work. After accepting a "friend" request from Respondent via Facebook, the two started communicating. Respondent was able to provide Ms. Stryker-Marando with information about graduate school assignments, projects and papers, and where to locate other information. Respondent and Ms. Stryker-Marando admitted they had a consensual sexual relationship prior to Ms. Stryker-Marando's employment at Zephyrhills School. The consensual sexual relationship, identified as a "friends with benefits" (FWB) relationship, began in late spring 2011 and continued through that summer. At some time during this FWB relationship, Ms. Stryker- Marando spoke with Respondent about an open ESE position at Zephyrhills School, and she applied for it. Ms. Stryker-Marando interviewed for the ESE position with Assistant Principal Williams. Respondent did not participate in the interview process for the candidates; however, when Ms. Williams told Respondent that Ms. Stryker-Marando was the best qualified candidate, Respondent gave his approval for Ms. Stryker-Marando to become a teacher at Zephyrhills School. Despite telling Respondent the FWB relationship could not continue, Respondent threatened Ms. Stryker-Marando with various statements, such as: "you owe me," "I saved your career," or "I helped you with grad school." Ms. Stryker-Marando felt her job was in jeopardy, and as a then single mother with two children, she no longer felt it was a consensual relationship, but rather job security. Respondent was her supervisor, the "CEO" of the Zephyrhills School, and had the power (real or imaginary) to end her job and/or her teaching career. Respondent repeatedly testified that he had a consensual sexual relationship with Ms. Stryker-Marando, which was on-going during the time when Ms. Stryker-Marando was his subordinate. However, for Ms. Stryker-Marando the sexual relationship was not consensual. Ms. Stryker-Marando did not want to continue the sexual relationship after she started working at Zephyrhills School, but she felt intimidated, harassed and threatened by Respondent. Ms. Stryker-Marando felt so much pressure by Respondent that she sought and obtained an ESE position at a different school. Mark Steve is the plant manager for Zephyrhills School. Mr. Steve worked in this capacity during the time Kari Kadlub, Tim Urban, and Derrick Tucker were assistant principals under Respondent at Zephyrhills School. Ms. Kadlub contacted Mr. Steve with a request for some work to be done. Mr. Steve was busy with other school projects, but at the end of the day he went to Ms. Kadlub's portable to follow-up on her request. As he walked up the ramp to the portable's door, he heard a lot of commotion coming from within the portable. When Mr. Steve knocked on the door, he heard more commotion, and looked through the view port (a window in the door approximately 8 inches by 31 inches in size). Mr. Steve saw Respondent standing by and exiting through the back door of the portable, dressed in his dress shirt and tie, but lacking pants which were draped over his arm. Mr. Steve backed away from the door window and when Ms. Kadlub answered the door, she appeared to be visibly shaken, and her hair and clothing were askew. Mr. Steve apologized for the interruption and left without following up on Ms. Kadlub's request. Shortly after Mr. Steve left the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban knocked on Ms. Kadlub's portable door. Once inside the portable, the three assistant principals had a trivial conversation, and Mr. Tucker observed a pair of men's shoes on the floor beside a couch. Upon leaving the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban went to the end of a building and watched the front door to Ms. Kadlub's portable. Less than two minutes later, Mr. Tucker saw Respondent leave Ms. Kadlub's portable, fully clothed and wearing shoes. Respondent contends that he used Ms. Kadlub's portable a few times to change into gym clothes because it was close to the school track. On the day these events allegedly happened (in paragraphs 24 and 25 above), Respondent contends that he went into Ms. Kadlub's locked portable while no one was there, changed clothes, and went out to walk the track. Ms. Kadlub contends that Respondent was already in gym clothes when she entered her portable, they discussed a student based issue, and he left the portable. This portion of the hearing implied that Respondent and Ms. Kadlub were engaged in some type of sexual relationship. There was no evidence to support that implication. Mr. Steve's testimony was credible. He expressed concern for his job over reporting his observation. Likewise, Mr. Tucker's testimony was descriptive. However, neither Mr. Steve nor Mr. Tucker observed any actual contact, sexual or otherwise between Respondent and Ms. Kadlub. There were significant rumors spread throughout the school and community which caused Ms. Kadlub to move to another school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(d), and not guilty of section 1012.795(1)(d), and rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (e), or rule 6A-10.081(5)(o). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission revoke Respondent's certification as an educator, with the decision concerning whether the revocation is permanent being left to the discretion of the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether just cause exists within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (2000), to discipline the Respondent for alleged sexual harassment as a result of inappropriate touching.
Findings Of Fact The Nassau County School Board (Petitioner) employed the Respondent as a fifth-grade teacher. The Petitioner took the action giving rise to this dispute and formal proceeding, that is, it suspended and then terminated the Respondent from his teaching position. The Petitioner referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal proceeding and hearing. The Respondent Bernice Lamar Miles is an annual contract teacher, employed as such by the Petitioner at times pertinent hereto. He was employed at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School and had been employed there for approximately four years. A.P., C.B., J.P., and S.A., at all times pertinent hereto were students in the fifth grade, with Ms. Helen Edenfield as their primary teacher, at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. During the fall semester of 2000 the Respondent taught approximately 540 students including those four, teaching them art and physical education. During the fall semester of 2000 the Respondent was scheduled to be the cafeteria monitor between 11:50 a.m., to 12:20 p.m. His duties, as cafeteria monitor, were to ensure the smooth transition of classes of students to and from the cafeteria. In doing so he attempted to maintain order, but typically permitted a more relaxed atmosphere than was the case in the typical classroom situation. There were at least ten other teachers and/or teacher's aides in the cafeteria eating with their classes or picking up or leaving their classes at the cafeteria on that date, between the times of 12:15 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. Between the times of 12:20 p.m. and 12:25 p.m., there were at least six teachers and/or teacher's aides in the cafeteria. There would also typically be some parents, food servers and/or custodians present during these time periods in the cafeteria. Also, on November 20, 2000, between the times of 12:20 p.m. and 12:25 p.m., there were approximately 200 students present in the cafeteria with classes entering or leaving the cafeteria about every five minutes. On November 20, 2000, there were no physical obstructions in the cafeteria that would interfere with any person's direct line of sight towards the stage where A.P., C.B., and the Respondent were standing at the relevant time. The Respondent's Exhibit A accurately depicts a general diagram of the cafeteria and was used for that demonstrative purpose at hearing. Ms. Edenfield's class was in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000, and she was scheduled to pick them up to return to the classroom at 12:25 p.m. The Respondent, therefore, called Ms. Edenfield's class to stand by the stage after they had finished eating lunch to await Ms. Edenfield coming to pick them up. While standing in front of the stage A.P., a fifth- grade student, called the Respondent over to ask him a question. On that date the Respondent did not know the first or last names of either A.P. or C.B. The Respondent, standing near both near A.P. and C.B., spoke to them about the cold weather that day and their decision to eat lunch outside without wearing warmer clothing. He typically speaks to students in the lunchroom and jokes with them, as it is a more relaxed atmosphere than in the classrooms. The Respondent typically is animated when he converses with people. It is quite common for him to touch an individual, either male or female while conversing with them. He speaks in this manner with both male and female and adults and children alike. This manner in which the Respondent makes physical contact with teachers or students while conversing with them is innocuous and has no inappropriate intent. The Respondent does not remember coming into physical contact with either A.P. or C.B. in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000. He did not touch either of them in an inappropriate manner on that date. He merely touched the students, if at all, in an effort to determine if they were cold from being outside without a jacket or sweater or possibly touched A.P. in an effort to fix her collar or neckline, which was askew. Although A.P. and C.B. were standing beside each other within arms length of each other on this occasion when they described the Respondent touching them, neither of these students witnessed the Respondent's alleged touching of the other. S.A. was also a student of the Respondent's in his art and physical education classes in the Fall semester of 2000. She was in the same class as A.P., C.B. and J.P. S.A. has never been touched inappropriately by the Respondent and has never witnessed the Respondent touch anyone in an inappropriate manner. S.A. was present in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000. At the time of the alleged inappropriate touching of A.P. and C.B., S.A. was standing in line next to A.P. and C.B. S.A. observed the Respondent come into physical contact with A.P. in the vicinity of her neckline and witnessed the Respondent fix A.P.'s collar which was askew. S.A. did not observe the Respondent touch C.B. at all. When Ms. Edenfield arrived to retrieve her class from the cafeteria at approximately 12:25 p.m., that day, the Respondent was standing at the microphone. The cafeteria, with approximately 200 students present, including Ms. Edenfield's class, appeared to her as it typically does. Just as the school day ended on November 20, 2000, A.P. reported to Ms. Edenfield that the Respondent had grasped the front of her shirt. A.P. demonstrated the touching with both hands to Ms. Edenfield, grasping the front neckline of her shirt and pulling outward. C.B. did not report any touching by the Respondent to Ms. Edenfield that day. Ms. Edenfield had A.P. go to the principal's office and report the alleged incident to Ms. Grondin, the principal. Ms. Edenfield later learned that C.B. must have accompanied A.P. to see Ms. Grondin. In any event, at least, she observed A.P. and C.B. later, back in the room, working together on a draft of a statement of what allegedly occurred between the Respondent and A.P. in the cafeteria. C.B., at some point later, apparently reported an alleged touching by the Respondent involving his putting his hand approximately half its length into the front of her shirt and purportedly incidentally touching the strap of her bra. S.A. who was standing at arm's length distance and who saw the Respondent straighten the collar of A.P., saw no touching at all of C.B. on the occasion in question in the cafeteria. J.P. was also a student in Ms. Edenfield's class, and in the Respondent's class, during the Fall semester of 2000. During that time prior to Thanksgiving, or prior to the November 20, 2000, alleged incident, J.P. contends that the Respondent touched her from four to six times on her back with his hand going inside her shirt. J.P. stated that when the Respondent patted her on the back he would occasionally remark that her art work was good and make other comments of that nature. J.P. testified, on cross-examination, that the alleged placing of the Respondent's hand inside her shirt did not occur on each of those occasions and then abruptly changed her testimony, upon re-direct, to state that the Respondent put his hand inside her shirt on every occasion. J.P. did not report the alleged inappropriate touching incidents immediately after they occurred. J.P. talked with A.P. on November 20, 2000, when A.P. contended that the Respondent had touched her. On the evening of November 20, 2000, A.P.'s mother called J.P.'s mother regarding A.P.'s allegations. Following that conversation, J.P.'s mother woke J.P. up to speak with her about the Respondent. The next morning, prompted by and accompanied by her parents, J.P. complained to Ms. Grondin, the school principal, about the Respondent's alleged inappropriate touching of her. The Respondent frequently patted students on the back for the purpose of consolation, encouragement or in a congratulatory manner. The Respondent pats the back of both male and female students many times a day. When the Respondent patted J.P. on the back, he would praise her regarding the quality of her art work and make other congratulatory comments to her. The Respondent has no memory of ever placing his hand on J.P.'s front or back in which any part of his hand protruded beneath her clothing. He never intentionally came into contact with the bare skin on J.P.'s back. It is determined that the Respondent did not touch J.P. in an inappropriate manner during the fall semester of 2000. If he did touch J.P. it was in an innocuous manner in which he touches all his students male and female. The testimony by J.P. that the Respondent put his hand beneath her cloths or inside her shirt is not persuasive and is not credible. None of the three complainants' academic performance appeared to have suffered during the time of and as a result of the alleged conduct of the Respondent. In fact, J.P. was a straight "A" student, while A.P. and C.B. were straight "A" students or "A/B" honor roll students. There is no evidence of any conduct or attitude on the part of the three complainants, before the proceeding, which would indicate that they were upset or nervous concerning any attitude or conduct on the part of the Respondent. The School Board maintains a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Section 3.54 of the Nassau County School Board Rules contains that policy. The policy defines "Sexual Harassment" as: Consisting of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when . . . such conduct substantially interferes with . . . a student's work performance or creates an intimidating hostile or offensive . . . school environment. The Respondent was disciplined by the Board for violating its sexual harassment policy, Section 3.54. Specifically, the "inappropriate touching" alleged in the letter of suspension of November 22, 2000, referred to the prohibited "inappropriate touching" in the Board policy which is designated the prohibition of sexual harassment. Dr. Ruis, the superintendent, opined that the alleged touching by the Respondent was inappropriate based upon his interpretation of the sexual harassment policy of the School Board. His interpretation did not take into account any intent requirement which the Board policy itself does require. His opinion that the touching, if it occurred, was inappropriate and that the Respondent had lost effectiveness based upon the incident becoming public knowledge is wholly dependent upon the complete accuracy of the students' allegations and his interpretation of the School Board policy which will be treated in the Conclusions of Law below. It is determined that the testimony offered by J.P., A.P. and C.B., is not persuasive. It was not preponderantly demonstrated by their testimony that the touchings or all of them even occurred at all, aside from the one occasion when the Respondent straightened A.P.'s collar, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of J.A. Moreover, even if some of the touchings occurred, it was not shown that they were inappropriate or had any sexual intent or motive because, for one thing, testimony concerning whether the Respondent's hand was beneath any of the complaining witnesses' clothing or not or the degree to which it purportedly was, was contradictory and, under the totality of the circumstances found above is simply not credible and persuasive. Consequently, to the extent that any touching occurred at all, it was not shown to be other than a mere innocent, innocuous pat on the back, or similar touching, with no sexual intent, motive or overtones associated with it. Given the totality of the circumstances established by the above Findings of Fact, as to where and under what conditions all of the touchings occurred, if at all, and particularly those described by J.P. and C.B. as purportedly having occurred on their persons at the dates, times and places described in their testimony, it is determined that, if any touching occurred at all, it was innocuous, innocent and of a non-sexual intent, and nature. Therefore, it was not inappropriate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Nassau County dismissing the complaint against the Respondent and reinstating the Respondent to his former position without diminution or loss in pay, benefits or other emoluments of his former position. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. Michael Ruff Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire Brian T. Hayes, P.A. 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 John L. Ruis, Ed.D Superintendent of Schools Nassau County School District 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Honorable Charlie Crist Commission of Education The Capitol, Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
